The
Independent
Anniversary
Issue: November 29, 2012
M.
Serajul Islam
The
Awami League took cue in 2008 from the successful thematic campaign of “change”
of President Obama. The AL coined “deen bodoler pala” or “time for change” as
their campaign theme to give the nation the hope that the dark days into which
the country had plunged as a result of the emergency and army rule had ended
and it was time for a new beginning. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina did not wait
to show the nation that she meant business about changing to better times when
she announced immediately upon assuming the reigns of the government that her
major intention in foreign affairs was to put the history of bad relations with
India behind and work for a paradigm shift in those relations.
The
Prime Minister took unilateral initiatives to send the message to New Delhi
about her seriousness. She stated categorically that her government will not
allow Bangladesh’s soil to be used by Indian insurgents to launch terrorist and
insurgent attacks against India. She backed her statement by handing over to
New Delhi seven top ULFA insurgents that helped the Indian Government to break
the back of the many decades old ULFA insurgency in Assam. The initiatives were
also a message to other insurgent Indian groups that the Bangladesh Government
was determined not to allow any of them to use Bangladesh as a sanctuary for
their actions. These groups have been using Bangladesh territory as a sanctuary
since the Pakistan days, a nexus that was well established at the level of the
intelligence and the security although when Bangladesh had an AL Government,
there was no indulgence for them at the political level.
Sheikh
Hasina’s initiatives encouraged India to take some actions of its own. It came
forward and offered Bangladesh a US 1 billion soft loan, later turning US$ 200
million out of it as grant. In the period when the two countries negotiated in
good faith, the Indians also offered concessions on trade and went ahead a long
way towards reaching an agreement for sharing the water of the Teesta River.
Although major irritants like killing of innocent Bangladeshis in
Bangladesh-India border remained despite Indian assurance on zero tolerance,
the two sides also negotiated and settled the land boundary agreement (LBA). In
the midst of all these, Sheikh Hasina went to New Delhi, an official trip that
was upgraded by a breach of protocol to a State Visit. In New Delhi, the two
sides signed 56 pages Joint Document (JD) that was more than just a document;
the negotiators of the two sides described this JD as a vision document
designed to take forward Sheikh Hasina’s vision of a paradigm shift in
Bangladesh-India relations.
In
the meantime, Bangladesh continued to provide India security assistance that
India utilized to take care of its security concerns concerning Bangladesh
being the soft underbelly of the country’s security. Bangladesh also provided
India land transit form its mainland to the Indian state of Tripura as well as
allowed its port of Chittagong on a trial basis that it used to build a power
station in Tripura, a project that will help the economic development of the
impoverished Indian state that has significant gas potentials in a major way.
In Bangladesh, the Prime Minister’s chief negotiators, her Adviser for
International Affairs, Dr. Gowhar Rizvi and Economic Affairs, Dr. Mashiur
Rahman went for a media offensive to convince the doubters mainly among the
opposition BNP that Bangladesh was not giving away its major playing cards,
namely the land transit and the security cards, without benefitting in a major
way.
The
two Advisers stated that in exchange for the two major concessions that
Bangladesh was offering India, it would receive very significant economic
benefits. They mentioned repeatedly that land transit will transform Bangladesh
into the regional connectivity hub by integrating the economies of Indian
northeast, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh where Bangladesh will also provide the
region with the use of the sea ports of Chittagong and Mongla. In fact, Dr.
Rizvi stressed that the economic benefits of becoming the regional connectivity
hub will be so vast that compared with it, the fees that Bangladesh expected to
receive from India by giving it land transit will be “meager.” Perhaps this was
the reason why Dr. Mashiur Rahman was angry that Bangladesh was asking for
transit fees from India.
There
was an air of great expectancy among the people of Bangladesh that
they will see the results of the paradigm shift that Sheikh Hasina had promised
at the time the Indian Prime Minister came to Dhaka in September, 2011,. The
Prime Minister’s negotiating team was certain that the paradigm shift would be
achieved with the inking of the Teesta water sharing agreement and the land
boundary agreement during that visit. The two sides also worked a number of
other agreements intended to strengthen the paradigm shift in bilateral
relations to make it sustainable. On its part, Bangladesh allowed Indian trucks
to haul heavy equipments to Tripura using Bangladesh’s weak road
infrastructure. Bangladesh also allowed India two more new ports of call in the
inland water protocol to allow India to use Bangladesh territory better for
transit. Bangladesh did not seek or receive any concessions from India for the
new ports of call and meantime continued with its security cooperation with
India in earnest.
Unfortunately,
the Prime Minister of India failed to deliver what Bangladesh expected on his
visit to Dhaka. Mamata Banarjee gave a hint at the eleventh hour that the dream
of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh for a paradigm shift had hit a major road
block. She withdrew from the entourage of Manmohon Singh and followed this by
refusing to allow the Prime Minister to sign the Teesta deal. She used the
power of the province over water under the Indian constitution to stop the deal
from being signed. New Delhi meekly acquiesced for reasons of politics because
Mamata Banarjee’s Trinamool held the balance of power in the Centre. It made no
effort to insist on its power to conduct foreign affairs given to it by the
Constitution to overcome MB’s objection.
Though
the LBA agreement was inked in Dhaka; the debacle over the Teesta was enough to
bring down the paradigm shift that Sheikh Hasina envisaged. In retaliation for
India’s failure to deliver Teesta, Dhaka withdrew exchanging letters that would
have given India land transit on a long term basis. Thus the whole edifice of a
major shift of Bangladesh-India relations came down suddenly. Although India
promised zero tolerance on border killings; agreed not to proceed on
Tippaimukh without Bangladesh on board and signed agreements in areas of trade
and other fields, the forward movement of relations was halted on the Teesta
issue flagging the importance of water in developing and sustaining
Bangladesh-India relations. Both sides nevertheless tried to give a positive spin
to the Indian Prime Minister’s visit based on these agreements and the LBA in
particular.. Unfortunately, the Indians failed to ratify the LBA because the
BJP objected to it when the Indian Prime Minister returned home. The
Indian media blamed its government for these failures, suggesting that India
has proved that it cannot be trusted. The international media too was critical
on India’s failure to deliver.
Suddenly,
everything looked different in the aftermath of the Indian Prime Minister’s
visit. The Bangladesh negotiators were quickly off the media, no longer harping
on the economic benefits of connectivity. The Prime Minister herself on many
occasions urged the Indians to deliver their side of the commitment to carry
relations forward; no doubt expressing her disappointment and political
predicament for surely the failure of India to deliver pushed her into a tight
political corner. Unfortunately, the ability of New Delhi to deliver got stuck
in politics and not on good will though it has not been explained why India did
not consider the Mamata factor and the BJP’s stand on LBA before the Indian
Prime Minister came to Dhaka. It has also not been explained why the Bangladesh
negotiators also did not separately see the Mamata factor and BJP’s stand before
going ahead and committing Bangladesh major playing cards of land transit and
security to India. There was no doubt that on both sides, the negotiators field
to do their homework properly and raised expectations that they failed to
deliver.
Nevertheless,
Sheikh Hasina’s vision of a paradigm shift and her government’s efforts to
achieve it for which she showed great political courage unfortunately not
matched by India has not been wasted. Although not given the publicity that it
deserved, India’s positive stance on trade that has been the consequence of the
initiatives taken by Sheikh Hasina has had very good results. In trade, the gap
still remains hugely in favour of India but Bangladesh has made major strides
into the Indian market that are expected to develop in the days ahead. In
relations between countries, once trade picks up because barriers that had been
created previously for reasons of politics have been brought down, there is no
return. Thus on the economic track, there is no doubt that Sheikh Hasina’s
vision of a paradigm shift has worked positively.
The
more important boost that the negotiations carried out between New Delhi and
Dhaka has had has been on the way it has turned the once untouchable subject of
land transit on its head. The Bangladesh negotiators in particular have been
able to explain to the people across the political divide that Bangladesh will
gain major economic benefits in granting land transit because it will make the
country the hub of regional connectivity where its ports of Chittagong and
Mangla will become the major focus of economic development of the region.
Bangladesh economists have on their own initiative exposed the huge benefits of
integrating the Indian northeastern states to Bangladesh that would be worth
over US$ 100 billion annually eventually if allowed to grow to full potentials.
The
transformation of land transit to connectivity has in fact been the main
positive development in Bangladesh-India relations. On the Bangladesh side, it
has had positive impact on the BNP that has now shown the willingness to
concede land transit to India in return for Bangladesh’s needs of waters of the
common rivers and fair resolution of the other outstanding issues. The BNP has
also shown positive stance on Indian need for security commitment that the AL
Government has already given. The BNP has of course tied the two commitments
firmly and unequivocally with India’s commitment and delivery on the needs of
Bangladesh. Thus, on the key issues that India wants from Bangladesh, namely
the issues of land transit and security, the AL and the BNP have moved to a
position of consensus. The BNP has stated categorically that these commitments
are conditioned to India granting Bangladesh its fair share of the waters of
the common rivers and resolving all other outstanding issues fairly. The AL has
made the same point to India when it withdrew the land transit agreement from
the negotiating table during the Indian Prime Minister’s visit. In fact, since
the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, the conduct of bilateral relations has
cooled off significantly because India has failed to deliver on its commitment.
Bangladesh has complained about lack of Indian interest with regards to its
much publicized US$ 1 billion soft loan while India, as recently as in the last
meeting of the two countries at Home Secretary level, complained that
Indian insurgents have still many camps located inside Bangladesh.
Nevertheless,
in their own way that reflects the country’s partisan politics, the two
mainstream parties of Bangladesh have conveyed to India in no uncertain terms
that the paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations now depends squarely on
India; that such a forward movement will be possible only if India delivers
what Bangladesh legitimately expects from it. That the message has not been
ignored in New Delhi has been clear by the way it has reacted. In what analysts
see as a sea change of New Delhi’s mindset towards Bangladesh, it invited first
former President HM Ershad to India. This was followed by a high profile visit
of Begum Khaleda Zia to New Delhi. India that in the past did not show much
interest in any political party in Bangladesh other than the Awami League has
entered into these relationships as part of what has been explained as New Delhi’s
initiative to reach out to the democratic multi party polity of Bangladesh.
There
is significant meaning in this new initiative. It suggests that India now
realizes two fundamental truths about negotiating with Bangladesh. First, it
cannot receive anything from Bangladesh without reciprocity; that even the AL
cannot give India anything without India giving Bangladesh was its expects .
Second, there is now consensus in the two mainstream parties about the way to
deal with India. These realizations of course are hugely important because the
negotiations have also brought to surface for knowledge of all on both sides of
the massive importance of the land transit and security cards to India. India
will not rest in peace unless it has security assurance from Bangladesh because
it is literally the “soft underbelly of its security.” Land transit is the key
to integrating its fragile northeast to the India mainland not for economic
reasons but for security as well. Together these two cards are of such value to
New Delhi that if Bangladesh can play these cards as a nation, then it can get
what it needs from India.
These
are the truths that have surfaced in the last four years. It is true that the
paradigm shift did not happen the way Sheikh Hasina wanted because of factors
not in her hands and not even in the hands of New Delhi, not yet at least. It
is good that it did not happen her way because it has helped bring BNP on board
and of course the realization in India that the ball is in their court; that if
it wants the immensely valuable land transit and security assurances from
Bangladesh; it must deliver. New Delhi must also do what Bangladesh has done
politically; resolve its own domestic political conflicts before seeking from
Bangladesh its interests. In India, the other major party in its politics, the
BJP must also come on board for positive relations with Bangladesh that is yet
to be.
The
parameters for the paradigm shift are now clear. The work that needs to be done
is on the Indian side. India must also prove what it promised Begum Khaleda Zia
when she visited New Delhi where she made the same positive gestures to India
that Sheikh Hasina did upon assuming power. New Delhi must establish that it
has no favorites in Bangladesh and that its relations are with the country and
not with a political party, a view that Pranab Mukherjee highlighted when he
visited Dhaka in May this year. There is yet another positive development
towards a paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations that surfaced during
Begum Khaleda’s visit to New Delhi.
In
New Delhi, Begum Zia conveyed to India the idea of a Bangladesh-India-China
Consortium with a deep sea port to be constructed in Sonadia for the
development of the region. This concept is in fact an up gradation of the idea
of connectivity with which the negotiators of Sheikh Hasina successfully
transformed land transit into a viable and lucrative economic concept. The
Indians showed interest in the idea of the Consortium and asked the BNP leader
for more details. In putting this idea across, Begum Zia informed her Indian
hosts that she had discussed this in Beijing that she had visited before going
to New Delhi and that the Chinese had expressed positive interest in it.
A
Bangladesh-India-China Consortium that could bring in Bhutan and Nepal could
also receive a positive support of the Americans if they are approached to
finance the cost of the deep sea port given their current interest in the
region flagged by the visit of the US President to Myanmar. If the Consortium generates
genuine support of India and the US that are now together in a strategic
partnership, it could be the beginning of the end of turmoil the region
involving China and India and the start of a new era of economic development
that could transform the region dramatically. The objective is far away still
but the possibilities are now there on board for all concerned to see.
Therefore the paradigm shift envisioned by Sheikh Hasina is very much alive but
only if India can match her vision that has now become a vision of Bangladesh.
There
has to be an interlude in the paradigm shift though. New Delhi does not appear
likely to be ready to deliver on either the Teesta or the LBA for domestic
politics under the current Congress led Government. Bangladesh’s elections in a
little over a year’s time will be another reason for New Delhi to go slow.
India too will have elections soon after Bangladesh has its. Therefore it is
not likely that the bilateral reactions of the two countries will have any
forward movement on the major issues till elections in both
countries. Nevertheless, enough positives have been generated over the
last four years to hope for a paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations for
which the only remaining part of the process will be to bring the BJP on board
and of course a period of waiting for elections and a new government in Dhaka
and New Delhi. Meanwhile the ball for the paradigm shift of Sheikh Hasina’s
vision is well and alive but in the Indian court.
The
writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt
No comments:
Post a Comment